Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2013 1:06:00 PM (view original):You can call it whatever you want to call it. You claim to be a lawyer, right? If so, you know that each ruling sets a precedent for future rulings. This controversy is in the court system. After the lawyers mangle the definition, there's no telling what "marriage" will mean.

IMO, if the benefits are the same, there really doesn't need to be one definition for all unions. It's like Wrigley Field, Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park. They play baseball on all of them but they use Field, Stadium and Park to describe their facility in their names.

Is there a reason this was ignored?

Is it because you think gay unions must be called "marriages" for the fight to be won?

It was ignored because it's nonsense. And when have I ever claimed to be a lawyer?

Nonsense because it makes perfect sense? Gays get the same rights as everyone else and the traditionalists get to keep their definition of marriage.

I guess your claim to be a lawyer was just bullshit. Keep your lies straight.

I've never claimed to be a lawyer. I'm not a lawyer. I didn't go to law school. I sell management liability insurance.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2013 1:06:00 PM (view original):You can call it whatever you want to call it. You claim to be a lawyer, right? If so, you know that each ruling sets a precedent for future rulings. This controversy is in the court system. After the lawyers mangle the definition, there's no telling what "marriage" will mean.

IMO, if the benefits are the same, there really doesn't need to be one definition for all unions. It's like Wrigley Field, Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park. They play baseball on all of them but they use Field, Stadium and Park to describe their facility in their names.

Is there a reason this was ignored?

Is it because you think gay unions must be called "marriages" for the fight to be won?

It was ignored because it's nonsense. And when have I ever claimed to be a lawyer?

Nonsense because it makes perfect sense? Gays get the same rights as everyone else and the traditionalists get to keep their definition of marriage.

I guess your claim to be a lawyer was just bullshit. Keep your lies straight.

I've never claimed to be a lawyer. I'm not a lawyer. I didn't go to law school. I sell management liability insurance.

OK, if you say so.

But you do understand the meaning of "precedent", right?

Like the precedent we set in 1967? You see why the slippery slope is a fallacy, right? Because you can use it to argue that anything could lead to anything.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2013 1:06:00 PM (view original):You can call it whatever you want to call it. You claim to be a lawyer, right? If so, you know that each ruling sets a precedent for future rulings. This controversy is in the court system. After the lawyers mangle the definition, there's no telling what "marriage" will mean.

IMO, if the benefits are the same, there really doesn't need to be one definition for all unions. It's like Wrigley Field, Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park. They play baseball on all of them but they use Field, Stadium and Park to describe their facility in their names.

Is there a reason this was ignored?

Is it because you think gay unions must be called "marriages" for the fight to be won?

It was ignored because it's nonsense. And when have I ever claimed to be a lawyer?

Nonsense because it makes perfect sense? Gays get the same rights as everyone else and the traditionalists get to keep their definition of marriage.

I guess your claim to be a lawyer was just bullshit. Keep your lies straight.

I've never claimed to be a lawyer. I'm not a lawyer. I didn't go to law school. I sell management liability insurance.

OK, if you say so.

But you do understand the meaning of "precedent", right?

Like the precedent we set in 1967? You see why the slippery slope is a fallacy, right? Because you can use it to argue that anything could lead to anything.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2013 1:06:00 PM (view original):You can call it whatever you want to call it. You claim to be a lawyer, right? If so, you know that each ruling sets a precedent for future rulings. This controversy is in the court system. After the lawyers mangle the definition, there's no telling what "marriage" will mean.

IMO, if the benefits are the same, there really doesn't need to be one definition for all unions. It's like Wrigley Field, Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park. They play baseball on all of them but they use Field, Stadium and Park to describe their facility in their names.

Is there a reason this was ignored?

Is it because you think gay unions must be called "marriages" for the fight to be won?

It was ignored because it's nonsense. And when have I ever claimed to be a lawyer?

Nonsense because it makes perfect sense? Gays get the same rights as everyone else and the traditionalists get to keep their definition of marriage.

I guess your claim to be a lawyer was just bullshit. Keep your lies straight.

I've never claimed to be a lawyer. I'm not a lawyer. I didn't go to law school. I sell management liability insurance.

OK, if you say so.

But you do understand the meaning of "precedent", right?

Like the precedent we set in 1967? You see why the slippery slope is a fallacy, right? Because you can use it to argue that anything could lead to anything.